|
Mors Rattus posted:What's the capsule summary there, whether Slants/Redskins is too common a word or is it about slurs? It's whether the ban on "disparaging" trademarks is Constitutional or not
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 08:34 |
|
|
so with the new term starting on Monday, does anyone want to make a new thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:so with the new term starting on Monday, does anyone want to make a new thread I think it's appropriate that the american people have a say in how the scotus thread is shaped going forward, so we're going to hold off on any new threads until after the next president is sworn in. Unless, of course, its Clinton and then we'll make a new thread in the lame duck session.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
More seriously, we might as well wait until the new justice is seated so that the OP doesn't have to be edited.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:What's the capsule summary there, whether Slants/Redskins is too common a word or is it about slurs? Slants is an Asian rock band that wants to take back the term. Circuit court ruled ban on disparaging trademarks violates first amendment
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I think it's appropriate that the american people have a say in how the scotus thread is shaped going forward, so we're going to hold off on any new threads until after the next president is sworn in. Unless, of course, its Clinton and then we'll make a new thread in the lame duck session. This is the just and true way forward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Slants is an Asian rock band that wants to take back the term. Circuit court ruled ban on disparaging trademarks violates first amendment They granted cert on the Slants, but not the Redskins. It looks like they are going to overturn Slants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Justices won't promise to rehear U.S. v Texas when they've got 9 justices again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:They granted cert on the Slants, but not the Redskins. It looks like they are going to overturn Slants. The redskins case is before the 4th circuit. I know that the redskins asked the Supreme Court to combine, I'm not really sure what the procedure for that or how often they do that. It does seem like they might overturn it. Maybe they'll try to enumerate a standard that actually works, because the disparagement, immoral or scandalous standard is pretty much untenable as it is now
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:The redskins case is before the 4th circuit. I know that the redskins asked the Supreme Court to combine, I'm not really sure what the procedure for that or how often they do that. Gotta agree. The current standard is untenable. Hopefully we won't get another Alice/Mayo poo poo show.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
For a good laugh, just look at what other trademarks have been deemed acceptable https://thinkprogress.org/washingto...9ea7#.8ph760gh3 A short selection quote:TAKE YO PANTIES OFF clothing
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Seems like that's pretty much admitting their they know the name is an ethnic slur. They may be LEGALLY CORRECT but it's somewhat flies in the face of their "honoring their native American coach's tradition" bullshit excuse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Radish posted:Seems like that's pretty much admitting their they know the name is an ethnic slur. They may be LEGALLY CORRECT but it's somewhat flies in the face of their "honoring their native American coach's tradition" bullshit excuse. Are you saying that they should be denied a TM registration based on hypocrisy? Even if the TM is free speech under the 1st amendment?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Are you saying that they should be denied a TM registration based on hypocrisy? Even if the TM is free speech under the 1st amendment? Nothing in my post implied that. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of their lovely excuse for a racist team name, which sounds somewhat valid to a layperson like myself, that they are more interesting in keeping for monetary reasons than holding on to their pathetic attempt at pretending they aren't a racist team name. Personally I hope they lose the trademark because gently caress them though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Radish posted:Nothing in my post implied that. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of their lovely excuse for a racist team name, which sounds somewhat valid to a layperson like myself, that they are more interesting in keeping for monetary reasons than holding on to their pathetic attempt at pretending they aren't a racist team name. That lovely excuse works better in the Slants case anyway (because it's actually valid there), which is why it's a better case to use to figure out the standard edit: that said, if Slants isn't allowed, there's no loving way Redskins is
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:For a good laugh, just look at what other trademarks have been deemed acceptable https://thinkprogress.org/washingto...9ea7#.8ph760gh3 SCOTUS Thread 2016: CRIPPLED OLD BIKER BASTARDS and so on
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
I really, really hope Baked by a Negro is a black guy/gal making a poor taste joke for marketing purposes. Not because that makes it a better name but the alternative is just.... ugh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I really, really hope Baked by a Negro is a black guy/gal making a poor taste joke for marketing purposes. Not because that makes it a better name but the alternative is just.... ugh. It is. http://www.bakedbyanegro.com/about-us.html http://rebecca4plainfieldcouncil.blogspot.com/
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Ok now I feel like a bit of a jackass. Nice history to that company then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I really, really hope Baked by a Negro is a black guy/gal making a poor taste joke for marketing purposes. Not because that makes it a better name but the alternative is just.... ugh. Turns out the pto Barely even considers the context of the trademark when approving or denying. Chances are whoever approved it didn't know who was baking what 3/4 don't look at context, 91% use dictionary definitions as primary evidence, 70% use only dictionary definitions EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Ok now I feel like a bit of a jackass. Nice history to that company then. Nice *fictional history! I didn't look into it further, but the footnotes day that the history is fictional and ties in with some book an blog that they also have?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Nice *fictional history! I didn't look into it further, but the footnotes day that the history is fictional and ties in with some book an blog that they also have? The history of the woman the company is calling back to is fictional. The owner of the company is apparently also a college professor and a councilwoman in New Jersey.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
While "Washington Redskins" may as well be "Florida Niggers" as far as how outrageously offensive the term is, it does seem like retroactively denying an existing trademark this far on is unprecedented. Does the team have a legal leg to stand on given that fact? 50 years is a long time. Should we be applying current community standards to old marks like that? Then again, I would think that a lot of companies re-brand if attitudes change enough that it is costing them business, and sports teams might be a little different. I can think of a few high schools that have changed the name of thier mascots due to it being offensive though so it isn't completely unheard of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
My school kept the name ("Chiefs") but changed their logo to a fireman. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:My school kept the name ("Chiefs") but changed their logo to a fireman. Ahh yes, now you're doing the "fire axe chop" while making "siren noises"
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Mine, however, is and has always been the Indians. With a full on Redskin esque logo. As far as I know no one has ever raised a stink, but I'm also pretty sure we have no actual natives anywhere near by.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
In my home state, there are two places called Blackman's bay. One because a guy that first owned land there was called James Blackman. The second because Aborigines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
There's a middle school here in Orlando which is named after Robert E Lee. I noticed last year they quietly removed the Lee mascot which was a characature of the General, but kept the name. I guess generally it gets referred to as just Lee Middle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
therobit posted:it does seem like retroactively denying an existing trademark this far on is unprecedented. Does the team have a legal leg to stand on given that fact? ...obviously if we get a Supreme Court ruling on the point any new case would just say "done, see prior case."
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
therobit posted:While "Washington Redskins" may as well be "Florida Niggers" as far as how outrageously offensive the term is, it does seem like retroactively denying an existing trademark this far on is unprecedented. Does the team have a legal leg to stand on given that fact? 50 years is a long time. Should we be applying current community standards to old marks like that? Then again, I would think that a lot of companies re-brand if attitudes change enough that it is costing them business, and sports teams might be a little different. I can think of a few high schools that have changed the name of thier mascots due to it being offensive though so it isn't completely unheard of. Well, besides the issues of free speech raised in the federal circuit opinion in the slants case (in re tam), the redskin mark is/was incontestable. And a mark being disparaging is not grounds to revoke an incontestable mark. I haven't read their brief so I don't know if they raised this challenge
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:And a mark being disparaging is not grounds to revoke an incontestable mark. This is incorrect Sec 2(a) grounds can always be raised: Section 14 posted:§1064 CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION Section 15 posted:§1065 INCONTESTABILITY OF RIGHT TO USE MARK UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS Section 2 posted:§1052 TRADEMARKS REGISTRABLE ON PRINCIPAL REGISTER; CONCURRENT REGISTRATION
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:This is incorrect Thank you. So uh, nope, no leg to stand on. Should be fun watching the racists melt down on this one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Mavric posted:Mine, however, is and has always been the Indians. With a full on Redskin esque logo. As far as I know no one has ever raised a stink, but I'm also pretty sure we have no actual natives anywhere near by. Wasn't the Cleveland area the site of a massive native development in pre-columbian (or even pre-jacksonian maybe) times? Like there are still huge mounds and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Interesting. I don't actually do trademark law, I was just parroting what I heard for a well know ip lawyer that had been pretty high up in the pto. Doesn't look like he's alone in that thought tho http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7e84a5e2-77a3-40d9-910b-40cc5ff71993 Denying a trade mark 50 years later on grounds that it should never have Been granted seems pretty bad, and seems like it would raise estoppel issues. But again, don't do ip law
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
therobit posted:Thank you. So uh, nope, no leg to stand on. Should be fun watching the racists melt down on this one. Well no leg to stand on except the first amendment. Which was the basis behind the court decision on The Slants, that §1052(a) is facially unconstitutional
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:This is incorrect Laches is a separate equitable defense. The TTAB addressed it from pages 73-81 of their opinion. http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92046185&pty=CAN&eno=199
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Laches is a separate equitable defense. The TTAB addressed it from pages 73-81 of their opinion. Laches has nothing to do with incontestability though and it's resolved by your own argument from above
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
esquilax posted:Well no leg to stand on except the first amendment. Which was the basis behind the court decision on The Slants, that §1052(a) is facially unconstitutional It is odd to me that the government choosing to not grant a monopoly on commercial use of a term is a restriction on speech. There's nothing that prevents them from monetizing it anyway, just that they would lack commercial exclusivity. If anything I would have expected an equal protection claim on the basis that not granting the trademark is not giving equal judicial consideration to those who wish to trademark it as it does people who trademarked some of the other offensive terms above, particularly as the use of §1052(a) seems arbitrary and capricious instead of following well-defined rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:It is odd to me that the government choosing to not grant a monopoly on commercial use of a term is a restriction on speech. There's nothing that prevents them from monetizing it anyway, just that they would lack commercial exclusivity. Well one of the concurrences focused on the arbitrary and discriminatory application so you've got some company there. The main opinion focused on 1) it discriminates based on the expressive content of the message so it's strict scrutiny and 2) it would fail the intermediate scrutiny test on "commercial speech" because government disapproval isn't a sufficient interest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 08:34 |
|
|
I'd analogize it to that racially restrictive covenant case: trademark protection goes above and beyond mere disapproval to government endorsement of disparagement
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 04:27
|
|
